Estimating Available Bandwidth With Multiple Overloading Streams

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods for estimating available bandwidth with multiple overloading streams are described. In one aspect, a set of packets are communicated by a probing sender to a receiver. The packets are sent at multiple sending rates. At least two of the sending rates result in multiple overloading streams of packets being sent to the receiver. The probing sender receives a set of queuing delay information from the receiver. The queuing delay information is based one-way delay measurements corresponding to receipt by the receiver of at least two pairs of successive packets of the packets. The probing sender estimates available bandwidth of the network based on the received queuing delay information and multiple sending rates associated with the multiple overloading streams of packets.

BACKGROUND

Internet applications typically utilize bandwidth estimation operationsto make intelligent bit rate and quality decisions when transmittingmultimedia (text, video, audio, images, etc.) content. Examples of suchapplications include Internet content distribution, media streaming,multiparty conferencing, Internet gaming, etc. Despite numerous existingavailable bandwidth measurement techniques, such techniques aresubstantially limited in terms of one or more of robustness, accuracy,and non-intrusiveness.

SUMMARY

This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in asimplified form that are further described below in the detaileddescription. This Summary is not intended to identify key features oressential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended tobe used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subjectmatter.

In view of the above, systems and methods for estimating availablebandwidth with multiple overloading streams are described. In oneaspect, a set of packets are communicated by a probing sender to areceiver. The packets are sent at multiple sending rates. At least twoof the sending rates result in multiple overloading streams of packetsbeing sent to the receiver. The probing sender receives a set of queuingdelay information from the receiver. The queuing delay information isbased on one-way delay measurements corresponding to receipt by thereceiver of at least two successive packets. The probing senderestimates available bandwidth of the network based on the receivedqueuing delay information and multiple sending rates associated with themultiple overloading streams of packets.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the Figures, the left-most digit of a component reference numberidentifies the particular Figure in which the component first appears.

FIG. 1 shows four exemplary active measurement probing patterns todetermine available network bandwidth.

FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary system for estimating availablebandwidth with multiple overloading streams, according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 3 shows an exemplary relationship between packet transmission inputrates and queuing delays, according to one embodiment.

FIG. 4 shows exemplary relative one-way delay changes that result frombuffer overflow under different queue sizes, according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 5 shows exemplary real one-way delay data when buffer overflowoccurs, according to one embodiment.

FIG. 6 shows an exemplary procedure for estimating available bandwidthwith multiple overloading streams, according to one embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Overview

Systems and methods for estimating available bandwidth using multipleoverloading streams are described. An overloading stream is a stream ofpackets sent to a receiver at a sending rate that is greater than a ratethat can be managed without buffer overflows and/or causing increasedone-way delays between receiver-receipt of successive packets in view ofan estimated available bandwidth of a network. In view of this, thesystems and methods implement a direct probing algorithm using packettrains to calculate available bandwidth from input rate and one-waypacket delay (OWD) information. This is accomplished independent of anyprior knowledge of tight link capacity. To substantially avoid bufferoverflow resulting from such packet trains, the direct probing algorithmadjusts packet train length based on probing rates and estimated linkcapacities. To provide a basis, several aspects of network capacity andavailable bandwidth are now discussed.

Network Capacity

The bandwidth property of a network path is typically defined with twometrics: capacity and available bandwidth. For instance, consider anetwork path P as a sequence of first-come first-serve (FCFS)store-and-forward links l₀, l₁, . . . l_(N) that deliver data from thesource to the destination. Suppose the bandwidth, or the maximaltransmission rate, of link l_(l) is C_(i), then the capacity of the pathis: $\begin{matrix}{C_{P} = {\min\limits_{{i = 0},{\ldots\quad N}}\left\{ C_{i} \right\}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$The capacity of a path is determined by the link with the minimal C_(i),referred to as narrow link. There are numerous techniques to measurenarrow link capacity. However, network capacity is growing at very fastspeeds, with network capacity usually on the order of hundreds orthousands of Megabytes (typically far beyond the bandwidth that anapplication may use). In such scenarios, determination of availablebandwidth which indicates how much bandwidth can actually be used by anapplication, has become of great interest.

Available Bandwidth

Measuring available network bandwidth is much more difficult thanmeasuring network capacity. One reason for this is because availablebandwidth is not a constant value, but rather, variable in that itchanges with time. Given a starting time T and a duration ΔT availablebandwidth of path P can be represented as follows: $\begin{matrix}{{A_{P}\left( {T,{\Delta\quad T}} \right)} = {\min\limits_{{i = 0},{\ldots\quad N}}{\frac{1}{\Delta\quad T}{\int_{T}^{T + {\Delta\quad T}}{{C_{i}\left( {1 - {u_{i}(t)}} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t}}}}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$where u_(i) (t)=1 if link l_(i) is in use at time t, and u_(i) (t)=0otherwise. As opposed to the narrow link, which defines capacity of apath, the link with the minimal spare bandwidth, referred to as tightlink, defines the available bandwidth of the path.

Existing techniques estimate available bandwidth using a statisticalmodel of the network path, or estimate the available bandwidth byiteratively probing the path with different rates. These two types ofapproaches are generally referred to as gap model and rate modeltechniques, respectively. The gap model technique evolved from apacket-pair methodology previously used to measure capacity. The gapmodel sends two probing packets in a short time interval Δ_(in) forqueuing at a bottleneck (a narrow link in capacity measurement, or tightlink in available bandwidth measurement). If there is only onebottleneck along the network path, each packet in the packet will arriveat a receiving device with the same spacing Δ_(out) as they left thebottleneck. One difference between the capacity measurement andavailable bandwidth measurement is that the former queues the packetsback-to-back in the bottleneck, while the latter uses competing trafficbetween the respective packets in the packet pair.

The gap model assumes that tight link capacity is known prior to makingavailable bandwidth determinations. With this assumption, availablebandwidth can be determined by subtracting the cross traffic rate fromthe link capacity, as follows: $\begin{matrix}{A_{P} = {C_{t} - {C_{t} \times \left( \frac{\Delta_{out} - \Delta_{in}}{\Delta_{in}} \right)}}} & (3)\end{matrix}$Among gap model techniques, it is often assumed that the tight linkoverlaps with the narrow link whose capacity can be estimated by somewell established capacity measurement tools. However, tight linkcapacity is not always known a priority, especially in the real Internetenvironment.

The assumption that tight link capacity is known a priori is relaxed inthe rate model, which determines the available bandwidth using a simpleheuristic: the input rate of the probing traffic should be the same asthe output rate unless it exceeds the available bandwidth of the path.To find the turning point where the output rate starts to be smallerthan the input rate, methods in this category iteratively probe thenetwork with various input rates. This is accomplished using eitherlinear or binary search techniques. One limitation of rate model is thatthis model generally introduces too much network overhead, whichtypically results in network congestion.

Available bandwidth measurements can be carried out by either passive oractive means. Passive measurement monitors routers and collects detailedperformance statistics. Based on these pieces of information, availablebandwidth is calculated during any time interval. The limitation of thisapproach is the request for special access privileges to all the routersalong the path, which is usually not possible over the Internet. Activemeasurement, in contrast, does not rely on access to underlyinghardware. The basic idea is to inject a sequence of probing packets atthe sender and estimate the available bandwidth by analyzing the outputat the receiver. Therefore, the active measurement technique can bedivided into a probing phase and an analyzing phase.

Self-injected probing traffic usually takes form of packet pair, packettrain, or packet chirp. FIG. 1 shows four exemplary active measurementprobing patterns to determine available network bandwidth. Referring toFIG. 1, type I is the same as the traditional packet pairs used incapacity measurement. There are two parameters for this input: theintra-pair interval Δ_(in) and the inter-pair interval Ε. While theselection of τ is specific to each method, Δ_(in) is usually set to thetransmission time of a probe packet on the bottleneck link. Anexponentially distributed τ, which results in a Poison sampling process,is commonly used. By choosing a large τ, the probing overhead can bekept at a considerably low level, but at the expense of prolongedmeasurement times.

FIG. 1(b) shows active measurement probing pattern type II. Probingpattern type II is different from probing pattern type I (FIG. 1(a)) inthat each measurement in probing pattern type II is composed of multipleprobing sequences with different intra-packet intervals. By choosingdifferent Δ_(in), the network is probed with different input rates. Themeasurement of each rate is the mean of N samples, which are collectedby 2N packets. The number of probing rates is determined by thepredefined measurement region [0 ^(min),0 ^(max)] and step Δ0. Hence,there are$2N \times \left\lbrack \frac{o^{\max} - o^{\min}}{\Delta\quad o} \right\rbrack$packets for each measurement. This can be a substantially large amountof data and the measurement duration can be extremely long if theinter-pair interval is large enough to avoid congestion.

FIG. 1(c) shows active measurement probing pattern type III, which is anefficient technique to collect N samples for a specific probing rate.Probing pattern type III sends a packet train of N+1 packets. Comparedto Type II, the number of packets required by Type III is reduced toN_(r)(N+1), where N_(r) is the number of rates to be probed. FIG. 1(d)shows active measurement probing pattern type IV, which is a sequence ofexponentially spaced packets, known as “chirps”. As FIG. 1(d) shows, asingle chirp of N_(r)+1 packets is sufficient to probe N_(r) rates. Asthere is only one sample for each probing rate, the stability of themeasurement is greatly impaired. As a result, this use of this probingpattern requires a tradeoff between efficiency and robustness.

After injection of probing traffic (direct and iterative probing),resulting measurement data is analyzed (the analyzing phase). Though allthe methods are intrinsically based on the same relationship between theinput rate (gap) and the output rate (gap), the choice of the objectbeing analyzed will affect the correctness and robustness of thealgorithm. There are three types of objects for analysis in existingmethods: (1) input and output gaps (Δ_(in) and Δ_(out)) between twosuccessive packets; (2) input rate R_(i) and output rate R_(o) of aprobing stream; and, (3) relative one-way delays (OWD) or the queuingdelays of a train of packets: D_(i)=T_(o)−T_(i), where T_(l) and T_(o)are respective input and output times of a packet i. Referring toequation (3), most direct probing techniques implement analysis patterntype I. It is often used in combination with probing pattern type III,wherein probing traffic is a train of evenly spaced packets. SinceΔ_(out) ^(k)=T_(o) ^(k+l)−T_(o) ^(k), the average of Δ_(out) becomes:$\begin{matrix}{\overset{\_}{\Delta_{out}} = \frac{T_{o}^{N + 1} - T_{o}^{1}}{N}} & (4)\end{matrix}$In equation (4), only arrival times associated with the first and lastpackets are used.

Iterative probing methods to discover the turning point (where theoutput rate starts to be smaller than the input rate) by solving thelinear equation R_(i)/R_(o)=αβR_(l) typically implement analysispatterns belonging to analysis pattern type II. Although the outcome ofa probing sequence is a series of time stamps for N packet pairs (2Npackets), only one R_(o) value is calculated as follows: $\begin{matrix}{R_{o} = {{\frac{1}{N}{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{n}\frac{b}{\Delta_{out}^{k}}}} = {\frac{1}{N}{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{n}\frac{b}{T_{o}^{2\quad k} - T_{o}^{{2\quad k} - 1}}}}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$In systems that implement analysis patterns of type I and II, eitherΔ_(out) or R_(o) are averaged among multiple measurements. Thedifferences between successive measurements are either neglected orcounteracted.

Analysis pattern type III is different than the previous two analysispattern types in that this analysis pattern captures the relative OWD)for every single packet, and uses the whole series of D_(i) for turningpoint (where the output rate starts to be smaller than the input rate)discovery. The difficulty of existing techniques that utilize thisanalysis pattern type, is that it is very difficult to extract usefulinformation from a mass of OWD measurements, eliminate noise caused, forexample, by network jitter, and maintain accuracy in face of bufferoverflows.

The systems and methods for estimating available bandwidth usingmultiple overloading streams, which are discussed below in reference toFIGS. 2-6, address the above discussed and other limitations ofconventional bandwidth estimation techniques.

An Exemplary System

Although not required, the systems and methods for estimating availablebandwidth with multiple overloading streams are described in the generalcontext of computer-executable instructions (program modules) beingexecuted by a computing device such as a personal computer. Programmodules generally include routines, programs, objects, components, datastructures, etc., that perform particular tasks or implement particularabstract data types. While the systems and methods are described in theforegoing context, acts and operations described hereinafter may also beimplemented in hardware.

FIG. 2 shows an exemplary system 200 for estimating available bandwidthwith multiple overloading streams, according to one embodiment. System200 includes computing device(s) 202 (probing packet sender(s)) coupledacross network 204 to any number of other computing devices such asprobing packet receivers 206. Respective ones of computing devices 202and 206 represent any type of computing device such as a server, apersonal computer, a laptop, a handheld or mobile computing device, asmall form factor device, etc. Although FIG. 2 shows probing packetsender(s) 202 and probing packet receivers 206 being independent of oneanother, this is an exemplary illustration for purposes of description.In one implementation a single computing device 202 or 206 can performthe following discussed operations associated with one or more of theother devices.

Computing devices 202 and 206 include one or more processing unitscoupled to system memory comprising computer-program modules and programdata. A processing unit fetches and executes computer-programinstructions from respective ones of program modules in the systemmemory. For example, computing device 202 includes one or moreprocessing units 210 coupled to system memory 212 (e.g., RAM and ROM).System memory 212 includes computer-program modules (“program modules”)214 and program data 216. Processor(s) 210 fetch and executecomputer-program instructions from respective ones of the programmodules 214. Program modules 214 include, for example, bandwidthestimation model 218, which uses multiple overloading streams togenerate available bandwidth estimation 220 for network 204. Programmodels 214 also include “other program modules” 222 such as an operatingsystem, application(s) that leverage results of bandwidth estimationmodule 218, and/or so on.

More particularly, bandwidth estimation module 218 implements directprobing packet sender operations of computing device 202. To this end,bandwidth estimation model 218 periodically sends probing packet trainsusing multiple overloading stream packet input rates (R_(i)) to aprobing packet receiver 206. Such packet trains are shown as respectiveportions of “other program data” 224. Bandwidth estimation model 218sends these probing packet trains using probing pattern type III, asshown in FIG. 1(c). One reason for this is because use of a packet trainis more efficient than use of packet pairs. Additionally, use of apacket train is more robust than chirps. One limitation of using apacket train is a high probing rate, which tends to cause bufferoverflow at the tight link. To address this, bandwidth estimation module218 implements a buffer control mechanism to adaptively adjust thepacket train length according to the probing rate and the estimated linkcapacity, as discussed below.

Responsive to receiving these probing packet trains from a probingsender 202, a receiver 206 calculates one-way delay (OWD) measurements226 for each received packets in view of sending rate information sentby the probing sender 202 to the receiver 206. OWD of a packet is thearrival time difference between this packet and the first packet in thetrain. Receiver 206 communicates these OWD measurements 226 to probingpacket sender 202. In view of multiple OWD measurements 226 from thereceiver 206 and multiple different probing packet sending rates (R_(i))set by sender 202, bandwidth estimation model 218 calculates rates(trends) of relative OWD (ΔD 228) to determine if the relates OWD ratesare increasing (please see equations (7) and (8) below). When the OWDsstabilize at a non-zero value and the trend stop increasing, it islikely that the receiving buffer at receiver 206 is full. (A zero (0)value is used in FIG. 4 to represent packet loss in FIG. 4. This is onlyfor visualization purpose, as OWD of a loss packet cannot be calculatedbecause there is no arrival time of this packet.)

Although the immediately preceding example illustrates that the receiver206 calculates OWD measurements 226, in one implementation, the receiver206 communicates packet arrival time difference(s) to the probing sender202 so that the probing sender 202 can calculate the OWL) measurements226. To accomplish this, receiver 206 would have at least a subset ofthe program models and program data already described with respect toprobing sender 202. Thus, either the sender 202 or the receiver 206 cancalculate available bandwidth.

In view of the OWD measurements 226, bandwidth estimation model 218estimates available bandwidth 220 (please see equation (18) below). Thisis accomplished independent of any prior knowledge of the communicationpath between the probing sender 202 and a respective receiver 206, andindependent of any prior knowledge of tight link capacity, andaccomplished in a manner that substantially avoids overflow. In view ofthis bandwidth estimation 220, bandwidth estimation module 218 adjustspacket train length based on probing rates and estimated linkcapacities, as discussed below with respect to equations (11) and (12),to substantially avoid buffer overflow at the receiver 206.

These and other aspects of system 200 are now described in greaterdetail in the following sections.

Single-Link Model

Starting from a single-link model with fluid competing traffic of aconstant rate. Let C be the capacity of that link and R_(c) be the rateof the competing traffic, then the available bandwidth of the link isA=C−R_(c)>0. In the real Internet, this single-link model can be appliedto any paths with only one tight link,

The working condition of the direct probing technique is that theintra-packet interval Δ_(in) is small enough so that b/Δ_(in)>A, where bis the size of the packet. When a probing train is used, the intervalbetween all the successive packets are the same, therefore,R_(i)=b/Δ_(in)>A. Now, consider the situation when a probing train ofrate R_(i) is injected into a single-link path with available bandwidthA, and R_(i)>A. Given a fixed packet size b, Δ_(in) can be determinedby: Δ_(in)=b/R_(i). Under the fluid assumption, the competing trafficarrived at the tight link during the time interval of Δ_(in) isR_(c)Δ_(in). Hence the total amount of the traffic arrived at the tightlink during Δ_(in) is b+R_(c)Δ_(in), Recall that the maximaltransmission speed of the tight link is C, sinceb+R_(c)Δ_(in)=(R_(l)+R_(c))Δ_(in)>CΔ_(in), the extra traffic will bequeued at the tight link, and the queue increases by $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad q} = {{\left( {R_{t} - A} \right)\quad\Delta_{in}} = {b \cdot \frac{R_{i} - A}{R_{i}}}}} & (6)\end{matrix}$Therefore, the increase of OWD between two successive packets (OWD)trend(s) 228) can be calculated by the following equation:$\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad D} = {\frac{\Delta\quad q}{C} = {\frac{b}{C}\frac{R_{i} - A}{R_{t}}}}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

In this implementation, bandwidth estimation module 216 utilizes a fixedpacket size b of 500B, although other packet sizes can be used. Sincethe input rate R_(i) is set by the sender (computing device 202), and ΔDcan be measured at the receiver, there are only two unknown variables Aand C in this equation. Theoretically, these unknown variables can besolved with only two measurements with different R_(i). Yet, if multiplemeasurements are available, bandwidth estimation model 218 furtherimproves accuracy of the estimation 220 as follows: $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad D} = {{\frac{b}{C} - {\frac{b \cdot A}{C} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}} = {\alpha - {\beta \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}}}} & (8)\end{matrix}$As shown in Eq. (8), ΔD has a linear relationship with the reciprocal ofthe sending rate R_(i). With multiple measurements of (ΔD,R_(i)),bandwidth estimation module first estimates α and β with Least SquaresFitting (LSF), or another type of fitting algorithm (e.g., MaximalLikelihood Fitting, etc.). Then, bandwidth estimation module 112estimates the available bandwidth 220 and the capacity of the tight linkas follows: $\begin{matrix}{{A = \frac{\alpha}{\beta}},{C = \frac{b}{\alpha}}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

FIG. 3 shows an exemplary relationship between packet transmission inputrates and queuing delays, according to one embodiment. In this example,the capacity of the measured link is approximately 560 Kbps. The foursets of results were gathered in view of the following amounts of crosstraffic (from left to right): 0 Kbps, 100 Kbps, 200 Kbps, and 300 Kbps.As shown, the available bandwidth estimates (measurements) are very wellfitted to a line as equation. (8) describes.

Probing Phase Control

For packet-pair probing traffic, bandwidth estimation model 218determines average input rate by both the intra-packet interval and theinter-packet interval: $\begin{matrix}{R_{t} = \frac{2\quad b}{\Delta_{in} + \tau}} & (10)\end{matrix}$Although Δ_(in) is very small, the probing rate can still be kept low ifa large τ is used. However, for packet train probing, R_(i) is solelydetermined by Δ_(in) which is small enough to cause buffer overflow.

FIG. 4 shows exemplary one-way delay changes that result from bufferoverflow under different queue sizes, according to one embodiment. AsFIG. 4 illustrates, three sets of data are collected under differentqueue sizes. All the other settings including link capacity, availablebandwidth, and input rate remain the same during the three example runs.The turning point where the OWD stops increasing, indicating that thebuffer is full, and the zero value of OWD implies a loss packet. Bufferoverflow is harmful as it affects the OWD measurements, thereforeimpairs the accuracy of the available bandwidth estimation.

FIG. 5 shows exemplary real one-way delay data when buffer overflowoccurs, according to one embodiment.

Buffer overflow may also lead to packet losses from competing traffic. Agood available bandwidth measurement technique should be non-intrusive,avoiding unrecoverable impact to the competing traffic during themeasurement. Using multiple overloading streams, bandwidth estimationmodule 216 achieves this by adjusting the packet train length based onthe input rate and the historical information of link capacity andavailable bandwidth. More particularly, let C and B be the capacity andthe buffer size of tight link P. The maximal queuing delay occurs whenthe buffer is full: D_(max)=B/C. When we probe this link with a rateR_(i), which is larger than the available bandwidth A, the traffic thatgets queued during time interval t is (R_(i)−A)·t. Assume that thebuffer is empty before the measurement, and that the packets are droppedusing the drop-tail strategy, the maximal time that the probing trafficmay last is: $\begin{matrix}{T_{\max} = \frac{D_{\max} \cdot C}{R_{i} - A}} & (11)\end{matrix}$Therefore, with the historical D_(max) information and the previousestimation of C and A, we can estimate the maximal number of packetsN_(max) that the sender can inject with rate R_(i): $\begin{matrix}{N_{\max} = \left\lfloor \frac{D_{\max} \cdot C \cdot R_{i}}{b\left( {R_{i} - A} \right)} \right\rfloor} & (12)\end{matrix}$

In: this implementation, bandwidth estimation module 216 uses a packettrain length with a minimum of 100 and N_(max).

Queuing Delay Estimation

Using multiple overloading streams, bandwidth estimation module 216estimates the available bandwidth 120 with two or more (ΔD,R_(i))measurements. As R_(i) is determined by the sender, ΔD becomes the onlyparameter that needs to be measured. Since packet train is used in ouralgorithm, ΔD can be taken on as the increasing rate of the relativeOWD. Bandwidth estimation module 216 applies the Least Median of SquaresFitting (LMS), or other type of fitting algorithm, to estimate the ΔD.The benefit of using LMS instead of piece-wise average or Least SquaresFitting (LSF) is robustness. By using LMS, up to 50% outliners, whichmay be caused by network jitters or context switch in a receivingsystem, are eliminated.

In this implementation, bandwidth estimation module 216 is concernedwith the relative OWD of the packets. In view of this, sender 202 andthe receiver 206 system clocks need not to be synchronized.

Multiple Tight Links

Under the assumption of FCFS scheduling and random dropping policy ofpackets at buffer overflow, the methodology of bandwidth estimationmodule 216 remains valid in the presence of multiple tight links. Inthis subsection, proof is provided under the condition that the numberof tight links N_(l) equals to 2. The extension to the cases whenN_(i)>2 is straightforward.

Let link l_(u) and l_(v) be the only two tight links in path P, whosecapacities are C_(u) and C_(v) respectively. Let A be the availablebandwidth of these two paths, and there exists a positive number δ whichsatisfies A+δ<minA_(i), i≠u,v. Considering a probing stream of constantrate R_(l) (A<R_(i)<A+δ) sent from the sender to the receivers passingthrough the tight l_(u) and then I_(v). According to (8), when it leavesthe first bottleneck I_(u), the increased OWD between two successivepackets is: $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad D_{u}} = {\frac{b}{C_{u}} - {\frac{b \cdot A}{C_{u}} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$As P_(i) is smaller than the available bandwidth of any other linksalong the path, the transmission rate of the probing train remains thesame until it reaches the second bottleneck I_(v) The input rate ofl_(v) is the output rate of link l_(u): $\begin{matrix}{R_{i_{v}} = {R_{o_{u}} = {C_{u} \cdot \frac{R_{i}}{R_{i} + \left( {C_{u} - A} \right)}}}} & (14)\end{matrix}$When the stream exits l_(v), the OWD difference between two successivepackets is further enlarged by ΔD_(v): $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad D_{v}} = {\frac{b}{C_{v}} - {\frac{b \cdot A}{C_{v}} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i_{v}}}}}} & (15)\end{matrix}$

Substituting (14) into (15), we have: $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad D_{v}} = {\frac{C_{u} - A}{C_{v}} \cdot \left( {\frac{b}{C_{u}} - {\frac{b \cdot A}{C_{u}} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{t}}}} \right)}} & (16)\end{matrix}$Therefore, the OWD difference observed at the receiver becomes:$\begin{matrix}{{\Delta\quad D} = {{{\Delta\quad D_{u}} + {\Delta\quad D_{v}}} = {{{c \cdot \frac{b}{C_{u}}} - {c \cdot \frac{b \cdot A}{C_{u}} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}} = {\alpha - {\beta\quad\frac{1}{R_{i}}}}}}} & (17)\end{matrix}$where c=1+(C_(u)−A)/C_(v). It is a constant as long as the capacity andthe available bandwidth of both tight links do not change during themeasurement. In view of this, the calculation of A (A=α/β) is stillcorrect since α and β are increased by the same constant factor.

A Complete Solution

The multiple overloading streams operations implemented by bandwidthestimation model 216 are not only an available bandwidth measurementalgorithm, but a complete solution that can be integrated into variousnetwork applications. Multiple overloading streams operations arecomposed of the iterative probing phase and the direct calculationphase.

Since a prior knowledge of network path between a sender 202 and areceiver 206 is not assumed or necessary, bandwidth estimation module216 starts to probe the network 204 from an initial rate R_(min), anddoubles the probing rate in each iteration until R>A, which can bejudged from an increasing trend of the OWD. In our implementation,R_(min) is set to 200Kbps, and the initial packet train length is set to100. An increasing OWD trend is reported if ΔD>δ. In our implementation,δ=50 μs. Doubling the probing rate represents one exemplary embodimentof the algorithm. In another embodiment, the probing rate is increasedand different ways. For instance, the probing rate can be increased by afixed value, as a multiple of a parameter p which is larger than 1,and/or so on.

After the iterative probing phase, bandwidth estimation model 216calculates obtain a rough estimation of the available bandwidth as:Å=R/√{square root over (2)}  (18)As R>A and R/2<A, Å satisfies: $\begin{matrix}{{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A} < \overset{\circ}{A} < {\sqrt{2}A}} & (19)\end{matrix}$

Then, in the direct probing phase, bandwidth estimation model 216 sendsfour trains of probing packets with respective rates such that 1/R_(i)is evenly spaced. In this manner, the estimation of A can be equallysensitive to the measurement errors of the four sequences. At least twoof the rates are selected such that they are greater than the actualavailable bandwidth, even in an extreme case where A=√{square root over(2)}Å. In one implementation, the rates at which the trains of probingpackets are communicated are 114%Å, 133%Å, 160%Å, and 200%Årespectively.

Given the frequency ƒ, bandwidth estimation module 216 makes ameasurement every 1/ƒ seconds. Taking the fact that the availablebandwidth does not change much during a short time interval, themeasurement of the previous round can be looked on as the initialestimation of the next round: Å_(n+1)=A_(n).

In the instance that Å_(n+)>160%A_(n), the four probing sequence may notprovide enough information for solving equation (9). In such a case, ifthe OWD of the sequence with the maximal probing rate (R=200%Å) shows anincreasing trend, bandwidth estimation model 216 attempts to solve theequation with a previous estimation of C. Otherwise, bandwidthestimation model 216 researches Å using an iterative process which isidentical to that in the initial phase used to calculate a roughestimate of available bandwidth.

An Exemplary Procedure

FIG. 6 shows an exemplary procedure 400 for estimating availablebandwidth with multiple overloading streams, according to oneembodiment, For purposes of exemplary illustration and description, theoperations of the procedure are described with respect to components ofFIG. 1.

At block 602, bandwidth estimation module 218 (FIG. 1) sends a firstsubset of multiple probing packets to a receiver 206 during an iterativeprobing phase. At block 604, responsive to the end of the iterativeprobing phase (determined in view of an increasing trend of one-waydelays), bandwidth estimation model 218 sends a second set of probingpackets during a direct probing phase to the receiver 206. At least asubset of the second set of probing packets are sent at rates that willgenerate multiple overloading streams with respect to the network (e.g.,at a tight link) and/or the receiver 206 (e.g., buffer of overloads,etc.). At block 606, bandwidth estimation model 218 receives queuingdelay information (OWD measurements 226) from the receiver 206. Thisqueuing delay information indicates one-way delay of each receivedpackets by the receiver 206. At block 608, bandwidth estimation model218 estimates available bandwidth 220 of the network 204 based on thereceived queuing delay information and at least two of multiple sendingrates associated with the multiple overloading streams andnon-overloading streams. The non-overloading streams are sent at bitrates that are lower than the available bandwidth of the probing path.

CONCLUSION

Although the systems and methods for estimating available bandwidth withmultiple overloading streams have been described in language specific tostructural features and/or methodological operations or actions, it isunderstood that the implementations defined in the appended claims arenot necessarily limited to the specific features or actions described.Rather, the specific features and operations of system 200 are disclosedas exemplary forms of implementing the claimed subject matter.

1. A computer-implemented method for estimating available bandwidth on anetwork including one or more tight links, the method comprising:communicating a set of packets, by a probing sender, at multiple sendingrates to a receiver, at least two of the sending rates resulting inmultiple overloading streams of packets being sent to the receiver;receiving a set of queuing delay information from the receiver, thequeuing delay information being based one-way delay measurementscorresponding to receipt by the receiver of at least two successivepackets; and estimating available bandwidth of the network based on thequeuing delay information and multiple sending rates associated with atleast two overloading streams of packets.
 2. The method of claim 1,wherein the method further comprises providing the available bandwidthto a real-time communication application to allow the real-timecommunication application to make educated data transmission decisions.3. The method of claim 1, wherein communicating the set of packetsfurther comprises: sending a first subset of the packets during aniterative probing phase; and responsive to an end of the iterativeprobing phase, sending a second set of the packets during a directprobing phase.
 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the iterative probingphase comprises: probing the network with a probing rate that isinitially equal to a minimal probing rate R_(min); increasing theprobing rate in each of multiple probing iterations until an increasingtrend of one-way delay is detected from the queuing delay information;and calculating a rough estimation of available bandwidth based on atrend of one-way delays and at least two different probing ratesassociated with the multiple overloading streams.
 5. The method of claim4, wherein calculations to determine the trend of one-way delays arebased on the following:${{\Delta\quad D} = {\frac{\Delta\quad q}{C} = {\frac{b}{C}\frac{R_{i} - A}{R_{i}}}}},{or}$${{\Delta\quad D} = {{\frac{b}{C} - {\frac{b \cdot A}{C} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{t}}}} = {\alpha - {\beta \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}}}};{and}$wherein Δq represents a rate of increase in size of a receiving bufferat the receiver, C represents an estimated data throughput capacity of atight link on a path between the probing sender and the receiver, brepresents size of a packet of the packets, R_(i) represents a probingrate of multiple different probing rates, and A represents availablebandwidth to be calculated.
 6. The method of claim 3, wherein the directprobing phase comprises communicating at least four trains of probingpackets of the packets to the receiver at evenly spaced sending rates,wherein at least two of the sending rates are greater than an estimationof available bandwidth determined during the iterative probing phase. 7.The method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling how many packetsare in a probing train based on: (1) a sending rate of the multiplesending rates, and (2) historical information indicating previouslydetermined maximal queuing delays and network capacities; and whereinthe probing train representing at least a subset of the packets.
 8. Themethod of claim 7, wherein controlling how many packets are in a probingtrade further comprises: calculating a number of packets N_(max) that aprobing packet sender can send in a probing train to a receiver at arate R_(i) according to the following:${N_{\max} = \left\lfloor \frac{D_{\max} \cdot C \cdot R_{i}}{b\left( {R_{i} - A} \right)} \right\rfloor};{and}$wherein C and B represent a previous capacity estimation and a buffersize of a tight link P, D_(max)=B/C is a maximal queuing delay when aprobe packet receiving buffer is full, A represents a previous availablebandwidth estimation, and b represents a packet size.
 9. Acomputer-readable medium comprising computer-program instructions forexecution by a processor to estimate available bandwidth on a networkthat includes one or more tight links, the computer-program instructionscomprising instructions for: sending across the network, by a probingsender, a first subset of multiple packets to a receiver during aniterative probing phase; responsive to an end of the iterative probingphase, sending a second set of the packets during a direct probingphase, the direct probing phase sending multiple overloading streams ofpackets to the receiver; responsive to the iterative and direct probingphases, receiving a set of queuing delay information from the receiver,the queuing delay information indicating one-way delay between receiptby the receiver of at least three successive packets; and estimatingavailable bandwidth of the network being based on the queuing delayinformation and at least two of multiple sending rates associated withthe multiple overloading streams.
 10. The computer-readable medium ofclaim 9, wherein the computer-program instructions further compriseinstructions for providing the available bandwidth to a real-timecommunication application to allow the real-time communicationapplication to make educated data transmission decisions.
 11. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the computer-programinstructions for the direct probing phase comprise instructions for:communicating at least four trains of probing packets of the packets tothe receiver at evenly spaced sending rates, wherein at least two of thesending rates are greater than an estimation of available bandwidthdetermined during the iterative probing phase; and iterativelyperforming the communicating at a particular frequency to estimate theavailable bandwidth in view of at least one previously estimatedavailable bandwidth.
 12. The computer-readable medium of claim 9,wherein the computer-program instructions for implementing the iterativeprobing phase comprise instructions for: probing the network from aprobing rate of multiple different probing rates, the probing rateinitially being equal to a minimal probing rate R_(min); increasing theprobing rate in each of multiple probing iterations until an increasingtrend of one-way delay is detected from the queuing delay information;and calculating a rough estimation of available bandwidth based on theincreasing trend of one-way delay and at least two different probingrates of the multiple probing rates.
 13. The computer-readable medium ofclaim 12, wherein calculations to determine an increasing trend ofone-way delay are based on the following:${{\Delta\quad D} = {\frac{\Delta\quad q}{C} = {\frac{b}{C}\frac{R_{i} - A}{R_{i}}}}},{or}$${{\Delta\quad D} = {{\frac{b}{C} - {\frac{b \cdot A}{C} \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}} = {\alpha - {\beta \cdot \frac{1}{R_{i}}}}}};{and}$wherein Δq represents a rate of increase in size of a receiving bufferat the receiver, C represents an estimated data throughput capacity of atight link on a path between the probing sender and the receiver, brepresents size of a packet of the packets, R_(i) represents a probingrate of the multiple probing rates, and A represents a previous estimateof the available bandwidth.
 14. The computer-readable medium of claim 9,further comprising: controlling how many packets are in a probing trainbased on: (1) a sending rate of multiple different sending rates, and(2) historical information indicating previously determined maximalqueuing delays and network capacities; and wherein the probing trainrepresenting at least a subset of the packets.
 15. The computer-readablemedium of claim 14, wherein the computer-program instructions furthercomprise instructions for: calculating a number of packets N_(max) thatthe probing sender can send to the receiver at a rate R_(i) according tothe following:${N_{\max} = \left\lfloor \frac{D_{\max} \cdot C \cdot R_{i}}{b\left( {R_{i} - A} \right)} \right\rfloor};{and}$wherein C and B represent a previous capacity estimation and a buffersize of a tight link P, D_(max)=B/C is a maximal queuing delay when aprobe packet receiving buffer is full, A represents a previous availablebandwidth estimation, and b represents a packet size.
 16. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the computer-programinstructions further comprise instructions for: calculating a maximalamount of time T_(max) that probing traffic is sent by the probingsender to the receiver according to the following:$T_{\max} = \frac{D_{\max} \cdot C}{R_{i} - A}$ wherein C and Brepresent previously estimated capacity and a buffer size of a tightlink P, D_(max)=B/C is historical information representing a maximalqueuing delay when a probe packet receiving buffer is full, R_(i)represents an average probe packet sending rate, and A represents apreviously estimated available bandwidth.
 17. A computing devicecomprising: direct probing packet means to send multiple overloadingstreams of probing packets to a receiver over a network; and calculatingmeans to calculate available network bandwidth based on multiplemeasurements of probing packet sending rates and receiver queuing delayscorresponding to receipt by the receiver of respective pairs of packetsfrom at least the multiple overloading streams of probing packets. 18.The computing device of claim 17 further comprising calculating means tocalculate a maximal amount of time for the direct probing packet meansto send probing packets to the receiver using at least the multipleoverloading streams.